Feelings on Napster?

• None of the arguments about "fair use" are on point because sharing an MP3 with thousands of people is NOT the same as sharing a single cassette in a parking lot (to counter Napster's silly argument). One cassette can change hands, but it's the same cassette. One MP3 can be downloaded jillions of times to jillions of people.
• No one can say that it's not theft. The music doesn't belong to you and no one gave you permission to have it for free. This is commerce, people.
• You are rationializing your theft to say that the music industry charges too much so you're entitled to steal from them.

I do not believe the RIAA is protecting anyone but the money grubbing music companies. This is not about the artists. They're ripped off on a daily basis by the labels they're signed to. Forced to make expensive videos (that come out of their own pockets), sign away their domain names, etc.

I wish that artists would make their own CDs and I could buy directly from them. They wouldn't even need a contract. Well, that's what a lot of this is about.

We all have heard that the music companies have been price fixing CDs since their inception. What this whole thing is about is that they want to control digital music and scare people into submission.

But let's call this nonsense what it is and not hide behind phoney arguments that any one with two IQ points can see is shallow. We all just end up looking like whiney kids when we say "but they're charging me too much, so it's okay to steal."

If you don't like paying that much, buy used. Or stop whining and don't buy. Or steal and keep your mouth shut about it. Protesting and stealing makes you look stupid and uninformed.

Unless you are that way....

And that's just how They want you to me. Stupid and gullible. End of rant. Thank you.

Fine. Steal all you want. Let's just not use metaphors like "redistributing wealth" (or property, or intellectual property, et al.) when we're talking about stealing.

Even if it's from people you really don't like.

Issabre: I don't see the point you're trying to make. Everyone protects their own self-interests. That's the way we are. Artists, musicians, what-have-you need to make a living and none of them want to (or should) give away their work.

I don't see how obeying the Social Contract is to the detriment of our society. If you take someone's product they should be remunerated for it. It's called exchange: something for something.

People sitting at home and scarfing free MP3s are not exchanging anything for it. It's a one-way deal. How is that help society?

It's only helping people to lazy to go out and pay for the music they want. That's called greed.

And to those who use MP3s to audition new music and then buy said music are A) not violating copyright, B) operating within the spirit of the Fair Use clause and C) are the only ones actually helping the artists.

You can have access to the internet for free, you can find content for free, but access to property you don't own for free is not the pervue of the internet.

The internet is a medium for distribution of information. Whether it be printed, or multimedia.

However, it's all copyrighted. Just because you see an image on a web page, doesn't mean you can (legally) download it and place it on your own site. Someone else created that image and owns it (and can control its use).

The same goes for music. Someone illegally copying a CD to the internet does not make it free. Rights are rights. Whether the label or the artist owns the music is irrelevant. The point is that the people who upload these MP3s do not and everyone downloading them are stealing.

Trying to argue from any other stance is sophistry or another (unrelated) argument.